How is our world going to be re-shaped and why? The industrial revolution

Yet, we have no idea how beautifully and free we could live with advanced technology allowed to fully bloom, if the elite hadn't hampered it to make it a monster in our eyes.

Consider that we will revert back to plants for cures, instead of synthetic drugs, which in itself is fantastic, but we will certainly have no more access to all our highly technological instrumentations to make surgery, transplants, prothesis...
View attachment 512

Look, how nice! That is how we will all live...the Flintstones...:D
Millions of toiling women today can only dream of having access to such technology which would save them from long, arduous and dangerous daily treks to get water for their families.
Meanwhile, we in the West squander vast volumes of drinking water down the sewer, burn gallons of fossil fuels in our built-in-obsolescence vehicles and don non-sustainable lycra while pedalling stationary bikes in expensive gyms whose only output is narcissism.
It wasn't such a bad way to live, when everybody had a valuable job to do in a close community. Pride and pleasure in his work is obvious on this healthy, happy man's face.
The elite may not get it all their own way. They may self-destruct in the process, leaving the merry peasants to their bucolic delights.

Some toilet wall humour I read:

"The meek shall inherit the earth."
"Who else would want it?"

That sums it up pretty well I think.
But Appropriate Technology is exactly the kind of technology and social context that will be allowed and applied after the Apocalipse also in Western countries... that is the kind of reshaping that the elite has been preparing us to adopt after reducing us to about 1/3 of our current population...

My intuition rarely fales me, look what I found...

Community-based technology expert Lonny Grafman compares popular cinema with the real-life science of how to survive, or maybe even prevent, an apocalypse.

Film Synopsis

Riding a war tank, Tank Girl fights against the tyranny of a mega-corporation that dominates the remaining potable water supply of a post-apocalyptic Earth.
After a comet disrupts the rain cycle of Earth, the planet has become a desolate, barren desert by the year 2033. With resources scarce, Kesslee (Malcolm McDowell)—head of the powerful and evil Water & Power Corporation, the de facto government—has taken control of the water supply. Unwilling to cower under Kesslee's tyrannical rule, a pair of outlaws known as Tank Girl (Lori Petty) and Jet Girl (Naomi Watts) rise up, joining the mysterious rebel Rippers to destroy the corrupt system.

About the Speaker

Lonny Grafman
is an Instructor of Environmental Resources Engineering and Appropriate Technology at Humboldt State University, Founder and President of the Appropedia Foundation, and the Advisor for the epi-apocalyptic city art projects, Waterpod, Flock House, and WetLand.

Lonny has led teams all over the world assisting communities with sustainability projects including the use of solar power to improve cookstoves, micro-hydro power, rainwater catchment, and constructing plastic bottle schoolrooms. He believes the most vital component to sustainability is community.
Critics to Appropriate Tecnology.

Technological limits to forecasts of doom: Science, technology, and the sustainable economy
Thomas R.De Gregori


In this paper some of the catastrophist literature that was prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s is surveyed. It is still being published but now seems to have a diminished following. The focus is on two major areas, on food and population and on mineral resources. To the catastrophists, the various ills that allegedly plagued the world were attributed to technology. Their solution was a new appropriate technology that would allow us to live within limits. I counter with the argument that technology is the creator of resources which it uses, and that the data on food supply show that world development has been positive. The alternate technologies that were offered are found to be, in my judgment, self-limiting and therefore selfdefeating. I argue that life in general and human life in particular has not survived by living within limits but by devising means of transcending them. Technologies that allow us to live within limits lead to stagnation and inevitable decline. The sustainable economy is one that continually evolves in the use of science and technology to create new resources.
A couple of comments from people:

"Environmentalists just want to offshore pollution in their quest to turn their homes into some sort of massive pleasure park like Versailles. Everybody not in their clique can eat cake. That's why it is always about their countries shutting down production, but usually never anyone else. Since they can always offshore or otherwise manipulate their sources of wealth they don't risk their own earnings. The only times that they go after foreign locations is like when they get worried that their plans to go on some sort of safari-like vacation might get ruined. In those types of cases, for instance, DDT reduction outweighs mass death from malaria. It's not a war on wealth per se. They want to keep their wealth and gluttonously enhance it. It's a war on the basic, modest holdings of the unwashed masses."

"Spot on. They really aren't honest at all. They do want to keep people down. They actively block improvements of life for other people. They're horrible creatures.
Propane gas has probably saved more African women and children from attacks from wild animals and raping roaming militias than any other single useful household or security action - they're busy cooking over a clean, smokeless flame instead of out miles from home, unprotected for hours of a day, forced to collect wood first in order to cook the family meals.

But what elitist has been seen promoting natural gas for Africa? Zero. Rural electrification? No. The elites don't like the 'look' of an LG gas or electric stove in the rural village picture so they have been for decades favoring projects that fund 'new' 'appropriate technology' archaic wood or charcoal stoves that have modern 'improvements' that can be found once for sale in the 1901 Sears catalogue. (Not making that up - was at a U.S. diner years ago and the tabletop had a laminate reproduction of a 1901 Sears catalogue page and was astonished to discover on it about five 1901 products that were amazingly identical to modern 'inventions' at a showcase UN project for 'innovative' "appropriate technology" for rural households).

A not long ago, around 2011ish a science magazine reported another 'we-earnestly-care' U.S. university project in Darfur to make - what else?- improved wood stoves for Darfur mothers in Darfur refugee camps. Stove designs that were all over Africa in the 1980s). The issue to solve? The 'new' 'efficient' stoves would use 40% less wood, reducing the mothers' odds of getting raped while collecting wood of a week by 40%. Wait... what?
Who knows how many Lebanese-owned petrol stations selling propane gas bottles and Lebanese-owned hardware stores selling gas stove burners the U.S. university researchers studiously ignored on the way to earnestly measure refugee-camp-issued cooking pots with their tape measures at the Darfur refugee camp/s? Further, what got in their over-educated heads that a 40% reduction on the odds of getting raped while just trying to feed the family every day was a genuine improvement in the quality of life?
It'd be laughably infantile except all these intensive and noisy lobbying activities influences development, financing and taxing decisions that actually keep millions upon millions of other people from improving their lot in life, so it's all actually straight-up mean."
Last edited:
Having to purchase propane really is not appropriate for these people.
More efficient woodstoves are wonderful when they can serve more than one purpose, eg in a cold climate where they also warm the house and wod is easily collected, but not much use in a hot climate when there is no net growth of firewood.
What does Africa have plenty of? Sunshine.
A very simple design of reflecting surface and enclosed solar oven is hands down the best, most appropriate technology here.
There are many designs, simple and cheap to produce, which use only free sunshine to cleanly and safely cook food.
India is promoting the production and use of methane gas from fermented manures and green waste for cooking. By-product is valuable garden fertiliser. There are many ways to sustainably improve the lot of various cultures, but they really do need to be tailored to their particular situations.
Flintstones and Jetsons? Both from Hanna-Barbera studios. They look like they were drawn by the same cartoonist. Funny how I never noticed that when I was six years old.

And I found something that I did not remember: people were living high in the sky because closer to the ground the Earth was covered with smog.

Cartoon Conspiracy thinks something more complicated is going on. Perhaps the Jetsons are the elite, and the Flintstones are the downtrodden masses? Or perhaps the Flintstones do not exist in the past, but in a post-apocalyptic future?

Or, could it be that the original cartoonist didn't anticipate any of this revisionism? Maybe the point was that family life is always the same, regardless of the technological accessories.

"Mankind today longs for free energy, and constantly talks about this. Consider that after the shift the tools needed for discovery of any new energy form will be hopelessly reduced. Mankind’s new energy will arrive in his lifetime if he is solidly Service-to-Other and is in a group controlled by those in this orientation. Then he will find he has high tech neighbors, or gifts, and life becomes very full of alternative energy sources. If he is not solidly Service-to-Other or in this environment, then he will live out his life in gloom, happily if he has learned to adapt without resentment, or sullenly. This is nothing new for mankind, who lives on all parts of the globe, including the gloomy Arctic, happily, having learned to adapt. And those sullen at having a comfort or toy removed are not new to mankind, or to life on this Earth."
All rights reserved:

That looks definitely the blackmail we will be subject to in the post-apocalyptic world.

"Survivors will find that they have a mix of experiences. This will range from people being plunged into what is essentially a Third World existence - straw and mud, eating what you can catch and kill, and hoping to cook it well enough not to get ill - to being very high tech in communities that are established with enough money and expertise and skill to have banks of batteries, radios and antennas, windmills and generators driven by gasoline or something that can be burned, and food stocks. So there will be a wide range of survival communities shortly after the shift. However, this will change over time. Those communities that find themselves scratching in the dirt and living a most primitive life may find, if they are spiritually of the right nature, being Service-to-Other, that they encounter people who are odd looking - seem to be bald and not wish to linger and have a conversation, but drop things off. What’s this? It appears to be a battery. What’s that? It appears to be a sack of food or seed. One thing leads to the next, and after awhile these mute, bald neighbors will be interacting regularly and these human survivors will find they are living a very high tech existence with remarkable neighbors. They will accept this because desperation fosters acceptance of solutions.

The high tech communities of humans, who in many cases will be enclaves of the rich, who have used their wealth and power to carve out an area whose perimeter they can protect with the military which will become mercenaries to the rich in such situations, will find they do not get this type of assistance. What happens in these communities, then, when the stores run out, when there’s no more fuel to run the generator, when there’s no more bags of food and canned goods to feed the community? Arguments break out. The mercenaries are hardly going to take orders from the idle rich when they have no power or authority and can’t supply them with money or goods or anything of value. These pampered rich people will be slaughtered, and sometimes in unpleasant ways, by their angry mercenaries, who in many cases have thug tendencies and enjoy cruel games. So now we have gangs, chewing down everything they can get their hands on and then going on the loose after there is nothing more to eat. These types of people are not prone to plan and work with each other, so growing crops and gardens and the like is the least of their thoughts, but looting is. But when they go on the loose, they will in fact be turned away from enclaves of good hearted people, in the many ways we are able to deflect knowledge and attention. We can be in the room with you, and you don’t see us. Likewise, a gang of thugs can pass by a good-hearted survival community and not see it, because we have prevented them from seeing it. So these gangs of thugs will die out, and the enclaves of the wealthy will become true hell-holes, something they don’t anticipate.

Survival communities of good-hearted folk will become high tech, due to interactions with aliens who have a technology many thousands of times superior to the technology that your human cultures now enjoy. But it will not be the technology of Homo Sapiens today. It will be better than that."

All rights reserved:

"Each human life lives out its term, with the entity incarnated growing with the opportunities presented, or shrinking from them. Those humans remaining alive after the pole shift will reform into small groups, leaning toward this orientation or another, Service-to-Other or Service-to-Self, or being composed of the same mix that human society has today. Where the trauma of the cataclysms will have been great, those who undergo a natural cataclysm often find this easier to accept than the steady grind of manmade hardships. For the vast majority of those killed during the cataclysms, death will have been so quick as to be unexpected and unfelt. No anxiety and no pain. This knowledge will assuage the grief of the survivors. After the cataclysms the hardships will not be unlike those experienced by humanity during prior centuries, where severe weather or drought or disease created hardship for the populace. It is only recently that human society, in the developed world, has come to expect that life should be otherwise"

Note: below added during the July 27, 2002 Live Zetatalk IRC Session.

"The US government will be diminished, as will all governments, to a very small locale. Someone landing on the planet 5 years after the shift would be hard pressed to even find their enclave, and this will be true of Australia, Russia, and China. The enclaves will be locale, within walking distance only, yet will be filled with the arrogance of continuing power, such plans. Like the Pope and his entourage, a small group convinced the world is waiting for them, ready to follow, a myth that will be a shock to them when they spread out and find no one cares nor listens."

All rights reserved:

For the whole picture see:

This material comes from the website Zetatalk, which is very famous among extraterrestrials fans. This website is a major promoter of the arrival of Planet X, a planet supposed to be getting close to the Earth and about to create great havoc, that is enviromental devastations (a total fake, the devastations will be performed through haarp technology).

Zetas are supposed to be grey type extraterrestrials coming from a far away star system (another fake, extraterrestrials being a fantasy, but believed by increasing numbers of people).

They say some of them are inside this hollow planet coming close to the Earth and will bring the change to the Earth into the new era, the spiritual era, where service to others will prevail. That is, devastations (and lots of deceased people) will be necessary in order to bring the beneficial change.
Beneficial for whom? one might wonder...

So far I've been proposing that in the post-apocalyptic world the masses will reverse back to a Middle Age economy to be better controlled, as it's always been for centuries, after we are lead to believe that the modern way of living is the cause for the environmental catastrophes that will occur. I've also proposed that the elite will be the only beneficiary of modern technology, finding excuses to justify that privilege, like it's not sustainable for the planet for all to use it, and that those who will use it will do so in service to others, for the good of all (which, as I said, will just be an excuse, the elite using it for its own advantage and pleasure).

Now, with Zetatalk's propaganda I've found something that better defines that picture, that seems to indicate that in the post apocalyptic world also common people will benefit from modern technology but at the condition that they live a life of service to others.

I am pretty clear that the elite wants us as servants to others, because by doing this we will serve the elite itself. They do not want people who ask "and me, what's in for me, what do I gain from that, why should I bother doing that?", which they define as egoistical, rather than natural, but they want people who sacrifice themselves to do what the elite wants, which is presented like the good for all, a superior motivation. This is nothing new: good slaves have always been moulded to be good servants: servant of God, servant of the nation, servant of your landlord, servant of your king, while the elite has all the way pretented to do the same, to be a servant of God, a servant of the nation, ect. while they have been pursuing their own really egoistical goals.

If you search Google with "the importance of service to others" you get 3,280,000 results. That says a lot about what the elite wants from us.
All religions teach that, the Christian, the Indu, the Buddhist, etc. and now also the New Age, which is the religion of the new era.

Somebody said "The third millenium will be spiritual or will not be." Which clearly means that either we change attitude, from the service to self to the service to others attitude, or our civilization will get extinct.

But that's totally false. The "service to self", individualist modern way of living has been designed and boosted by the elite itself (think of edonism for example), to blame it for the catastrophes that the elite is going to perform with its advanced technology (haarp type). In this way the elite will achieve that we accept to be good servants in exchange for some modern technology, because at that point we will believe that only people who are not the least selfish can handle modern technology without being a threat to the planet.

Let's go back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Imagine what this meant for the ruling elite in terms of control of the population: before the ID people were mostly serfs working the land, living in absolute poverty and believing to be serving God by serving their landlord. Imagine the difficulty to make people keep this belief when comforts coming from the ID change their life: they can get cured by modern medicine, no need to pray God and give money to the church, they have enough to eat without donating the church for prayers, etc.

Can you see why the church devised to call the ID devilish? And demonized the natural orientation to self, taking care of one own's needs, coming with it? That's when, in my opinion, the elite decided to distort and amplify the "service to self" attitude in society, to the point of getting to the exact opposite: from total negation of one own's needs of feudal times, to the total egoism, insensitivity to others needs of modern life. How did they achieved that? For example by creating a model lifestile coming from advertizing, based on consumism, which only apparently is exclusively motivated to increase sales, in my opinion.

In conclusion, my theory is that the coming disasters are the elite strategy to, besides reducing the size of the world population to their needs, retrieve the service to others attitude (that is service to the elite) lost when the Industrial Revolution bloomed. Exchanging modern technology with service to others is their way to retrieve that attitude lost, in a world which has techologically progressed too far to permanently go back to Middle Age times, and also because the elite wants to keep benefiting from the advanced technology with no problems:
by making people access technology if they are service-to-others oriented the elite does not risks revolts for its own use of advanced technology. While those who will not have access to it will be believed to be all selfish people, so blamable ones, and they will be easily disposed of (killed) by the elite because the service-to-others-oriented ones will believe to be on a different vibrational level that will make the service-to-self ones disappear from their sight (which is based on the belief of the ascension of the planet to another dimension).

This look like the selection process of the elite to keep alive only the people that serve them.

You can see how easily people will be manipulated by believing that the amount of technology they get is proportional to their service-to-others orientation: they might not get much technology and believe that that is because they are not enough generous (oriented to others). The elite instead will revel in high tech and boasting it and people will believe that's because they are so generous!

Which is exactly the same belief induced in indu people, where guru say they have plenty of money because in their previous life they behaved very well, while those starving in the street were very evil people in previous lives (which nobody can verify).

One might wonder how can, the elite, simple human beeings, "be able to deflect knowledge and attention. We can be in the room with you, and you don’t see us."

In my experience, this whole plan is not just a plan of incarnated beings but a conjunct one with disembodied ones, who definitely have such ability.
Last edited:

Reading news has become harder and harder for me as I know they don't say the truth and I am forced to investigate bit for bit.

You might probably know there are alarming news about the Amazon forest to be unprecedentedly on fire right now, with lots of worring for our future, as this forest is considered to contribute 20% of our global oxigen, thus being called our lungs.


Our major source of oxigen is the oceans. The contribution of Amazon forest is more like to be around 6% of the total source, and less. And even if it was all burned we would not run out of oxigen for a long long time.

There have been indeed increasing fires in August, as it appears, but it's not record numbers and we do not know yet if the total deforestation this year is higher than previous years. Also, a part of fires are controlled grassland (not forest) burning, as part of normal maintanance activity by farmers (ranchers) to make grass regrow.

One piece of information that I spotted totally fake is the cloud of smoke that supposedly invested Sao Paulo one afternoon, making the sky dark and coming from thousands of km away right from the burning Amazon fires, thus making people suppose the fires must be really big:

"By around 3.30pm on Monday afternoon, thick black clouds covering the city shrouded São Paulo in abnormal darkness. By 4 pm, the sky was near black, startling residents and provoking wild debates on social media.

The National Institute of Meteorology (Inmet) quickly responded by saying the darkness was caused by abnormally heavy low clouds and an incoming cold front, but Brazilian netizens had other ideas, sparking a minor moral panic on social media.

A number of Twitter accounts suggested that the darkness was in fact a smoke cloud which had traveled all the way from the northern state of Rondônia—some 2,400 kilometers away as the crow flies—where deforestation efforts have seen a huge upsurge in deliberate forest fires in recent weeks.

Speaking to Estadão, Inmet meteorologist Helena Turon Balbino reaffirmed that the dark skies were in fact a weather phenomenon, formed by the convergence of moist winds coming from the south and south-east.

This didn’t stop the frenzy on social media, with some users in São Paulo claiming there was a “burning smell” in the air, and that the dark afternoon was a direct result of the Jair Bolsonaro government’s lax policy toward deforestation."

A local newspaper published the info that the surge of fires was due to ranchers (farmers) deliberately and openly setting fire to claim more land for their work and taking responsibility for it, a day organized by one association, in response to their Premier's supposed permission to do so.

I don't believe farmers take such bald initiatives, unless they are lead by some inside agent who uses them for other purposes.

If it's true that farmers have done such thing, under misleading guidance, something that has rebounced worldwide, together with the fake story of the smoke in Sao Paulo, I can only see one real motivation behind it and behind the false alarmism about Amazon: getting us used to accept that it's beneficial to reduce the world population and give up eating meat. So we stop threatening our oxigen lungs in order to eat.
Last edited:
Here is the deforestation rates in Brazil since the 70s. Contrary to the collective claims that cry out that deforestation is dramatically increasing it has consistently decreased instead.

Period[34]Estimated remaining forest cover
in the Brazilian Amazon (km²)
Annual forest
loss (km²)
Percent of 1970
cover remaining
Total forest loss
since 1970 (km²)
Last edited:
Here is another article that backs up what I already found.

"Why Everything They Say About The Amazon, Including That It's The 'Lungs Of The World,' Is Wrong

The increase in fires burning in Brazil set off a storm of international outrage last week. Celebrities, environmentalists, and political leaders blame Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro, for destroying the world’s largest rainforest, the Amazon, which they say is the “lungs of the world.”

And yet the photos weren’t actually of the fires and many weren’t even of the Amazon.

I was curious to hear what one of the world’s leading Amazon forest experts, Dan Nepstad, had to say about the “lungs” claim.

“It’s bullshit,” he said. “There’s no science behind that. The Amazon produces a lot of oxygen but it uses the same amount of oxygen through respiration so it’s a wash.”

Plants use respiration to convert nutrients from the soil into energy. They use photosynthesis to convert light into chemical energy, which can later be used in respiration.

Consider that CNN ran a long segment with the banner, “Fires Burning at Record Rate in Amazon Forest” while a leading climate reporter claimed, “The current fires are without precedent in the past 20,000 years.”

While the number of fires in 2019 is indeed 80% higher than in 2018, it’s just 7% higher than the average over the last 10 years ago, Nepstad said.

And while fires in Brazil have increased, there is no evidence that Amazon forest fires have.

Against the picture painted of an Amazon forest on the verge of disappearing, a full 80% remains standing. Half of the Amazon is protected against deforestation under federal law.

“Few stories in the first wave of media coverage mentioned the dramatic drop in deforestation in Brazil in the 2000s,” noted former New York Timesreporter Andrew Revkin.

Deforestation declined a whopping 70% from 2004 to 2012. It has risen modestly since then but remains at one-quarter its 2004 peak. And just 3% of the Amazon is suitable for soy farming."
And here is another article that better explains why the Amazon forest is not our lungs.

"Even if the entire Amazon rainforest burned down, we'd be okay.

The oft-repeated claim that the Amazon rainforest produces 20% of our planet's oxygen is based on a misunderstanding. In fact nearly all of Earth's breathable oxygen originated in the oceans, and there is enough of it to last for millions of years.

As an atmospheric scientist, much of my work focuses on exchanges of various gases between Earth's surface and the atmosphere. Many elements, including oxygen, constantly cycle between land-based ecosystems, the oceans and the atmosphere in ways that can be measured and quantified.

Nearly all free oxygen in the air is produced by plants through photosynthesis. About one-third of land photosynthesis occurs in tropical forests, the largest of which is located in the Amazon Basin.

But virtually all of the oxygen produced by photosynthesis each year is consumed by living organisms and fires. Trees constantly shed dead leaves, twigs, roots and other litter, which feeds a rich ecosystem of organisms, mostly insects and microbes. The microbes consume oxygen in that process.

Forest plants produce lots of oxygen, and forest microbes consume a lot of oxygen. As a result, net production of oxygen by forests — and indeed, all land plants — is very close to zero.

For oxygen to accumulate in the air, some of the organic matter that plants produce through photosynthesis must be removed from circulation before it can be consumed. . Usually this happens when it is rapidly buried in places without oxygen — most commonly in deep sea mud, under waters that have already been depleted of oxygen

Oxygen that the algae produced at the surface as it grew remains in the air because it is not consumed by decomposers.

Only a tiny fraction — perhaps 0.0001% — of global photosynthesis is diverted by burial in this way, and thus adds to atmospheric oxygen. But over millions of years, the residual oxygen left by this tiny imbalance between growth and decomposition has accumulated to form the reservoir of breathable oxygen on which all animal life depends. It has hovered around 21% of the volume of the atmosphere for millions of years.

Even though plant photosynthesis is ultimately responsible for breathable oxygen, only a vanishingly tiny fraction of that plant growth actually adds to the store of oxygen in the air. Even if all organic matter on Earth were burned at once, less than 1% of the world's oxygen would be consumed."
Last edited:
PATHETIC... I wonder, isn't spreading misinformation a punished crime?

Here they are trumpeting that the Amazon fires (which are not exceptional this year as we saw) are bringing global warming to the point of no return.
So they can turn their HAARP antennas on and melt polar ice, and we will blame the bad Brazilian loggers and farmers...
Scientists warn raging Amazon fires could tip us beyond the point of no return

See my posts on HAARP as cause for global warming:

Actually they will not melt polar ice, because even if they did that, as we saw with Ruby, this would not rise the sea level. But they can create tidal waves that will resemble the effect of ice caps melting.
Last edited:
PATHETIC... I wonder, isn't spreading misinformation a punished crime?

Of course it's not a crime to spread misinformation. It's called 'freedom of speech'.

But that doesn't mean we need to promote mis- or disinformation here on this website!!

According to the numbers on your spreadsheet above: the rate of deforestation in the Amazon was high and fluctuating before 2004, with a maximum of ~29,000 km2 per year in 1995. Then started a consistent decline which continued until 2012, which was a result of a very successful Brazilian conservation program. After 2012 the trend has reversed, and the rate of deforestation has increased 60% since its minimum. Under Bolsonaro, it's feared that the situation could go back to 2004 or worse.

Also see:

Deforestation has serious consequences for climate change, but not because of oxygen loss. The real problem is that the fires release CO2, and the resultant damage to the soil releases more CO2.

So they can turn their HAARP antennas on and melt polar ice,

So you are admitting that the polar ice is melting??

Actually they will not melt polar ice, because even if they did that, as we saw with Ruby, this would not rise the sea level.

So you're not admitting anything after all. It doesn't change the facts: polar ice is melting.

Polar sea ice melting, does not increase the sea level. Glacial ice melts over land masses, do increase the sea level.

But they can create tidal waves that will resemble the effect of ice caps melting.

With the atomic bombs that don't exist?? The level of circular and self-contradictory thinking is what's mind-boggling here.
Here's an article that traces the origin of the "Amazon Lungs of the Earth", "20% of Earth's Oxygen" meme. It turns out there's a grain of truth to the meme, although it's widely misunderstood.

Nevertheless, the 20 percent myth has been making the rounds for decades, though it’s unclear where it originated. Malhi and Coe reckon it stems from the fact that the Amazon contributes around 20 percent of the oxygen produced by photosynthesis on land—which may have erroneously slipped into public knowledge as “20 percent of the oxygen in the atmosphere.”
Obviously, none of this is to say that the Amazon isn’t important. In its pristine state, it makes a significant contribution to pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Coe likens it not to a pair of lungs, but to a giant air conditioner that cools the planet—one of our most powerful in mitigating climate change, alongside other tropical forests in central Africa and Asia—some of which are also currently burning.
Perhaps in itself, losing a few tenths of a percent of the Amazon forest each year might not seem alarming. But the destruction isn't just at the edges: the forest is being cut into a patchwork. And there's a widespread concern that its health could be nearing a tipping point, as species disappear, ecosystems collapse, and the hydrological cycle could break down at any time. current rates of deforestation, tropical rainforest are only several years’ worth of deforestation away from smashing through the critical point.
To get a sense of what happens once deforestation surpasses the critical point, the research team played out their simulations in the Amazon basin. Just as in the case of an epidemic, the simulations predicted that the scale of deforestation would increase exponentially once the forest began to collapse on itself. By 2050, without an end to human deforestation, the overall area of the Amazon rainforest was predicted to drop by half. Even in a scenario in which reforestation was undertaken, but without concerted efforts to end deforestation, the rainforest fared little better.
That’s a bleak forecast considering how essential massive rainforests are to the planet as we know it. A 2015 study suggested that losing the world’s tropical rainforests could not only cause nearly a degree of atmospheric warming, but could also dramatically alter rainfall patterns around the world. Without rainforests to serve as an atmospheric sponge around the equator, places as distant from the tropics as the United States’ corn belt could see drought become commonplace. Closer to where the forests once stood, fires will run rampant as the land dries up. Tropical soils, without trees to turn over nutrients, will turn toxic to agriculture.
Polar sea ice melting, does not increase the sea level. Glacial ice melts over land masses, do increase the sea level.

Actually no. We are talking about Greenland here I guess, after North Pole and South Pole have been easily debunked as not having the power of rising the see level, the first because made of just ice and the second because too freezing to get over 0 temperature for enough time.

But Greenland has been claimed to be rising as the glaciers melt, so it means, like Ruby was saying, that also land masses rise when ice on top of them melts.

You might argue that they do not rise enough to compensate the ice melting, but it doesn't look so.

Greenland glaciers are not melting faster than in the past. And with such sudden melting ices in the past we have never had troubles with see level rising...

But they can create tidal waves that will resemble the effect of ice caps melting.

With the atomic bombs that don't exist?? The level of circular and self-contradictory thinking is what's mind-boggling here.

Obviously no, I was talking about HAARP. HAARP has been widely claimed as the cause for tzunamis like the one in the Indian Ocean in 2004.
Last edited:
Of course it's not a crime to spread misinformation. It's called 'freedom of speech'.

Those who intentionally spread misinformation are pathetic to me, and it should be a crime. Because it is willfully done knowing that it will damage others or the collective life.
Last edited: